Troubled Waters At the Salon Spa
Two Ex-Employees Present a Very Different Image of Andre Chreky

By Neely Tucker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 3, 2007

For a decade, Andre Chreky's boutique has been atop the particular trade that is the high-end hair salon industry in the nation's capital.

The charismatic native of Morocco has been stylist to Laura Bush (as well as the twins). Washingtonian magazine noted that Chreky was "far and away Washington's most popular stylist," naming the salon as tops in the city as early as 1998. This year, the salon is still ranked as the magazine's choice for "the busy executive."

Washington isn't quite Gotham, with Sally Hershberger and the $600 haircut, or Hollywood, where the late Jay Sebring's hairdresser fame was translated into the 1975 film "Shampoo." But there is no doubt that Chreky's five-story "Tuscan retreat" townhouse at the power intersection of 16th and K has been the place where Washington women who care for the finer points of their appearance have often preferred to book an appointment.

Which makes the sexual harassment lawsuits filed in U.S. District Court in the past nine months by two former stylists against the 52-year-old Chreky all the more stunning. Chreky denies the allegations in his court responses, saying these are bitter ex-employees attempting to wreck his reputation. One of them, he says, is retaliating for a lawsuit he previously filed against her.

These are not just allegations of a wayward touch or a leering remark, but of graphically detailed physical attacks, backroom groping and years of sexual crudities and financial reprisals when those advances were rejected. They are supported by 16 sworn affidavits gathered by the plaintiffs from former employees, nine of whom say they witnessed Chreky inappropriately touch plaintiffs Ronnie Barrett or Jennifer Thong. Three witnesses say they, too, were sexually approached or inappropriately touched by Chreky.

Thong's lawsuit alleges a 2005 incident in Chreky's office:

"Mr. Chreky got up and slammed the door, pushed her over and got on top of her. Plaintiff began to cry and yelled for him to let her go. He grabbed her skirt, tore it . . . Mr. Chreky unzipped his pants" and attempted to force intercourse.

In a separate 2005 incident, Thong's suit says that Chreky accosted her in the salon's kitchen and ripped her underwear off with such force that it bruised her. In 2004, he gave her a ride home, the lawsuit says, but stopped the car and "rolled on top of her. Mr. Chreky lifted her skirt, grabbed her underwear, pulled it to the side . . . and grabbed her genitals."

The lawsuit by former stylist Barrett, a longtime employee of Chreky's, recounts a February 2004 incident that she says took place in his fifth-floor office: "Mr. Chreky jumped up and grabbed her below the neck and shoulder blades and forcefully shoved her back into the chair" and demanded oral sex.

Chreky says in court papers that those events never happened.

Maurice Clarke, in a sworn affidavit, described his 10 years at the salon, most of them as a manager:

"Approximately twenty different female employees on at least sixty different occasions came to me to complain about Andre's inappropriate sexual advances and sexual comments to them, and requested my assistance in some way. . . . I believe that Andre is a sexual predator with his employees, particularly those who are originally from Third World countries, because of the power he can exert over them based on their immigration status and lack of knowledge of their rights."

Barrett's lawsuit makes a similar allegation, that Chreky used his position "to attempt to coerce and intimidate attractive, vulnerable immigrant female employees like Ms. Barrett, to perform sexual acts."

Thong is a native of Cambodia and resigned from the salon last year. Barrett, a native of Brazil, was fired in the same year. Both are U.S. citizens and have lived here for years.

Chreky and his attorney, David J. Sullivan, declined to be interviewed for this report. The lawsuit is still in the discovery stage and affidavits from witnesses have been shared by both sides. Sullivan issued a brief written response to the suits through a public relations firm that firmly denied the allegations. They have also sent the plaintiffs statements from 14 current employees who say they have never seen Chreky act inappropriately.

"Based on what I saw at work and heard from Jennifer Thong directly, I think Jennifer was pursuing Andre Chreky and became disappointed when her pursuit was unsuccessful," says Edil Karkas, a Chreky employee, in his statement.

In court filings, Chreky says the sexually explicit events never happened. The dispute with Thong started, he says, when he sued her last year after she left the salon. That suit unsuccessfully attempted to enforce a no-compete clause in her contract that would have barred her from opening her new salon for six months. Chreky says Thong's sexual harassment claims are in retaliation for that suit.

"Plaintiff Thong attempted to blackmail [Chreky] . . . by threatening to claim she was sexually harassed," says Chreky's response to the lawsuit. "Plaintiff Thong intentionally took confidential information from the salon, including information identifying prominent customers of the salon . . . this . . . constituted violations of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, breach of her fiduciary duty to her employer, conversion and theft."

Chreky's response to Barrett's claims of repeated sexual harassment is simple: "Defendants deny the allegations."

Robin Pence, a customer for nearly 20 years, calls the allegations "ridiculous" and "disgusting."

"Andre is a man of great integrity, very kind, and the word 'gentle' is weird, but that's what I think of with him," Pence said in a telephone interview. "I just think [the suits are] utter nonsense, someone seeking to gain at someone else's expense."

"The court process is continuing," Sullivan says in his written statement. "We will put people under oath, confront them with hard evidence, and let a jury decide who's telling the truth. Andre has enormous faith in the process."

* * *

The Chreky salon is in a narrow rowhouse tucked between a Starbucks and a Burger King at one of Washington's busiest downtown intersections. It's a beautifully lighted salon, with two floors for hair stylings (starting at $50 for a basic trim, going up to $1,400 for hair extensions) and hair colorings, massages, pedicures and manicures. The prices of Chreky's personal hair services are not listed on the Web site.

Salons at this level have their own culture, and much of the trade is based on lofty image, intimate atmosphere and personal attention. As opposed to most businesses, where discussion of personal appearance and physical contact is taboo, these are a salon's stock in trade. Women come in and say, "Make me beautiful," if not "Make me sexy." The spicy bon mot, the slightly outrageous hairdresser, the magazines with hairstyles and celebrity gossip, the hot stone massages, the delicate facial -- what's on sale in any high-end salon is sensuality and physical appeal.

No one in Washington has understood this dynamic over the past decade better than Chreky and his wife and business partner, Serena. Their Web site promises clients that when they "cross the threshold" of the salon they will discover the "subtle allure of a Tuscan retreat. . . . See? Your tension is already lifting. This is Andre Chreky. This is just the beginning. The best is yet to come." The site promises clients will leave "purring with pleasure."

Part of a mini-dynasty in the trade (Chreky's brother and sister also own downtown salons, and other relatives maintain salons in the suburbs), Chreky honed his craft at both of his siblings' shops before opening his own in 1997.

Chreky's talent as a hairdresser, his gregarious personality and his driving work ethic helped propel the salon to the top of the social circuit, including a three-year stint with the ultimate Washington plum, White House work. The senior Bush family even donated a signed portrait of both Bush presidents to one of the salon's charity fundraisers.

"The salon, if I come in tired, the salon is tired," he testified during an unrelated 2005 hearing in Virginia. "If I sit down, everybody is sitting. I'm the energy in the salon. People feel it."

Chreky turned this energy into profit. He submitted a pay stub during that Virginia proceeding showing his 2003 salary to be more than $500,000 -- which did not include the salary of his wife, the company's vice president.

As Chreky's wealth accumulated, he and his wife also lent the salon's prestige to charity.

From 1999 to 2005, the Chrekys contributed to the Children's National Medical Center by running a "Salon-a-Thon": 24 straight hours of salon service, contributing all proceeds to the hospital via The Washington Post's annual fundraising drive. The last four years, the day generated more than $100,000 in donations annually, according to lists of contributions published in The Post.

"They were truly doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, and they really poured themselves into it," said Lisa Cantu, the hospital's manager of events and promotions. "They were phenomenal."

Bob Levey, the former Post columnist who directed the fundraiser for more than 20 years, in print routinely thanked "the wonderful people" at the salon for their contributions, which were, by far, the largest donations made to the drive.

Even his critics acknowledge that Chreky worked relentlessly to build the business into one of Washington's best.

"He has a lot of charisma," says Jeremy Buchanan, a former employee whom Chreky unsuccessfully sued after he joined Thong in her new salon. "He was the don of the place. But he runs it like a don."

* * *

Behind the perfumed scenes, controversy and confrontations have followed Chreky.

When he worked at his sister's salon, Piaf, in 1996, he allegedly tried to attack a female co-worker on the sidewalk in front of the salon, leading to his arrest and a night in jail. The charges were dropped the next day.

When he left the salon in 1997, he sued his sister over how to divide the business, according to court records. He sued his brother's children the same year in an attempt to bar them from opening a salon using the family name in Montgomery County, family members say. His sister, Lisette Attias, declined to comment, as did David Chreky, one of his nephews who was a defendant in the suit. (This reporter has been a client of Attias for five years but first learned of her relationship to Chreky during the reporting of this story.)

Despite the salon's success, the D.C. Department of Employment Services found in 2003 that Andre and Serena Chreky had failed to pay their employees overtime. An audit by the department found "several violations" in a 20-month period during 1999 and 2000. The city ordered the Chrekys to pay a total of $26,205 to 47 of their 59 employees and he did.

Andre Chreky was in court in Virginia in 2005, after a former girlfriend, Adele Doudaklian, said he fathered her child in 1986. She testified that she and Chreky had an extramarital affair for nearly 20 years, while each was married to other people. Her husband filed for divorce and a DNA test established that he was not the child's father.

Doudaklian then filed for child support from Chreky, and a DNA test identified him as the father with "99.99 percent certainty." The Virginia Department of Social Services' Division of Child Support Enforcement ordered Chreky to pay child support. Chreky did but appealed the paternity decision, denying he was the father. After losing two initial rounds, Chreky wound up in District Court, where a judge dismissed the results of the lab test as flawed, and said Doudaklian's testimony was "very problematic."

Barrett and Thong had both worked for Chreky for years, they say, and had a friendly relationship with him before he began approaching them for sex around 2003. Thong lists seven physical encounters during a two-year period. Barrett said in her lawsuit that Chreky's retaliation against her was so severe that when she was pregnant, he refused to let her sit while working, nearly resulting in the loss of her baby.

"Mr. Chreky often became upset with Ms. Barrett and Ms. Thong, and when he did, he came to the receptionist desk and instructed us to block off their books or move their clients to other stylists," says a statement from Julia Taylor-Brown, one of several former receptionists who say Chreky routinely took out his anger on stylists by taking clients away from them. (Sullivan says that current receptionists have given statements that Chreky doesn't "block the books" of stylists.)

According to the current suits, Chreky was prone to vein-popping tirades, verbal and physical abuse while docking pay and taking tips intended for employees.

Barrett and Thong both say they stayed at the salon because of financial necessity. A no-compete clause in their contracts barred them from working within a five-mile radius for six months after their departure -- which would have left them with almost no clients and no income, they say.

The statements gathered by the plaintiffs include two from former co-workers, both of whom say that they have known Chreky more than a decade and that they counseled him to stop acting inappropriately with employees.

"It's very unusual in these types of suits to have so many people willing to sign these kinds of statements under the penalty of perjury," says Debra S. Katz, Barrett's attorney. "Clearly, Mr. Chreky has made a career out of targeting young immigrant women and subjecting them to very serious harassment, and expected to do that with impunity."

In his responses, Chreky has noted that the salon was far too busy to allow such incidents. His responses also point out that by the nature of the trade, people must stand close to one another to work, and that common sense argues against such brazen behavior going unchecked for long.

"When employees collaborated on a single client, it was impossible for those employees to do other than 'stand close' to one another," Chreky's filing says. "Defendants deny that any such positioning was sexual in nature."

The two suits are both at early stages of litigation. For example, they might be dismissed on technical grounds -- Chreky maintains in one filing that the statute of limitations has expired -- get settled out of court, or end up in trial.

* * *

No matter how this dispute ends, it's clear when it began.

Last year, Chreky sued Thong, Buchanan and another former employee for opening their salon nearby so soon after leaving his place. He asked for an injunction to force Thong's new salon to close and for $10 million in damages.

D.C. Superior Court Judge Maurice A. Ross rejected Chreky's injunction request -- ruling Chreky would not suffer irreparable harm -- and wrote there was "a substantial question" as to whether Chreky would prevail on any of his claims. Chreky withdrew the suit, court files show.

Months later, Thong, then Barrett filed their suits.

"He needs to be stopped," Barrett said in an interview, fighting back tears. "If I'm ever going to feel better about myself, and really be able to let go of all those things . . . I need to see justice done, not just for me but for everyone else."

Thong says she filed her suit after months of psychotherapy persuaded her to fight back.

"I'm saying these things for one reason," she said in an interview. "Because he did them to me."

For one of Washington's toniest establishments, a place that promises peace and serenity, both may be in short supply in the coming months.